Post by rmarks1 on May 25, 2019 12:11:44 GMT -5

Your video is critical of a different talk given by Peterson. How does that apply to this Peterson talk?

As for Derrida's "denial", this is what Foucault said about him during a discussion with John Searle:

"Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of "obscurantisme terroriste (terrorist obscurantism)...And I said, 'What the hell do you mean by that?'

And he said, 'He writes so obscurely you can't tell what he is trying to say, and then when you criticize him, he can always say 'You didn't understand me; you're an idiot'. That's the terrorism part'."

Post by Deleted on May 25, 2019 12:59:31 GMT -5

Your video is critical of a different talk given by Peterson. How does that apply to this Peterson talk?

Gee, I don't know, maybe Peterson has been talking about the exact same topic multiple times over the last years?

A very bold and risky assumption on my part, I know!

As for Derrida's "denial", this is what Foucault said about him during a discussion with John Searle:

"Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of "obscurantisme terroriste (terrorist obscurantism)...And I said, 'What the hell do you mean by that?'

And he said, 'He writes so obscurely you can't tell what he is trying to say, and then when you criticize him, he can always say 'You didn't understand me; you're an idiot'. That's the terrorism part'."

Conversations with John Searle, by Gustavo Faigenbaum, pg 251

Bob

Bob

Bravo, Bob! Flawless Reasoning! Derrida has got to be a Marxist if Foucault has called him a terrorist. From the fact that Foucault insulted Derrida, you can really tell that the only logical conclusion is that DERRIDA IS ACTUALLY A MARXIST. Very intelligent and rational of you to recognize this definitely true fact!

Do you have any other very intelligent and rational conclusions like this to offer?

Post by rmarks1 on May 25, 2019 14:10:29 GMT -5

Your video is critical of a different talk given by Peterson. How does that apply to this Peterson talk?

Gee, I don't know, maybe Peterson has been talking about the exact same topic multiple times over the last years?

A very bold and risky assumption on my part, I know!

Yes it is a risky assumption on your part. You are assuming that the arguments in two different lectures are identical.

Did you actually bother to see the video I posted or did you just assume that Peterson gave the exact same lecture word for word?

As for Derrida's "denial", this is what Foucault said about him during a discussion with John Searle:

"Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of "obscurantisme terroriste (terrorist obscurantism)...And I said, 'What the hell do you mean by that?'

And he said, 'He writes so obscurely you can't tell what he is trying to say, and then when you criticize him, he can always say 'You didn't understand me; you're an idiot'. That's the terrorism part'."

Conversations with John Searle, by Gustavo Faigenbaum, pg 251

Bravo, Bob! Flawless Reasoning! Derrida has got to be a Marxist if Foucault has called him a terrorist. From the fact that Foucault insulted Derrida, you can really tell that the only logical conclusion is that DERRIDA IS ACTUALLY A MARXIST. Very intelligent and rational of you to recognize this definitely true fact!

Do you have any other very intelligent and rational conclusions like this to offer?

Did I say that Derrida has to be a Marxist because of what Foucault said about him? Of course I didn't.

You made it up.

The point was that someone who knew Derrida well said that Derrida always turned back criticism by saying that the critic misunderstood what he actually said.

Therefore Derrida's similar denial in the video you posted has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 15:00:38 GMT -5

Please read what I said. I said "Does Peterson ALWAYS tell people they are misinterpreting him?"

I was making a comparison to what Foucault said about Derrida. Foucault said that Derrida ALWAYS accused people of misinterpreting him. Does Peterson ALWAYS do that?

What convoluted line of argument is this? We should consider Derrida a liar because Foucault insulted him in one private conversation where he wasn't even present? And what does this have to do with Peterson again?

I asked you if you would take his statements with a grain of salt. Well, do you? Or do you prefer to consume opinions you agree with unconditionally and uncritically like a cult follower?

Do you actually know anything about Peterson's work, or did you pick this video at random because it's an old guy yelling about postmodernism?

Do you know that Peterson is both a Nietzschean and a Christian fundamentalist who weaves Bible verses into nearly every single argument he makes? Would you take that person's claims with a grain of salt, or is that more the type whose opinions you would accept uncritically and without further analysis?

Post by rmarks1 on May 26, 2019 16:45:23 GMT -5

Please read what I said. I said "Does Peterson ALWAYS tell people they are misinterpreting him?"

I was making a comparison to what Foucault said about Derrida. Foucault said that Derrida ALWAYS accused people of misinterpreting him. Does Peterson ALWAYS do that?

What convoluted line of argument is this? We should consider Derrida a liar because Foucault insulted him in one private conversation where he wasn't even present? And what does this have to do with Peterson again?

I asked you if you would take his statements with a grain of salt. Well, do you? Or do you prefer to consume opinions you agree with unconditionally and uncritically like a cult follower?

Do you actually know anything about Peterson's work, or did you pick this video at random because it's an old guy yelling about postmodernism?

Do you know that Peterson is both a Nietzschean and a Christian fundamentalist who weaves Bible verses into nearly every single argument he makes? Would you take that person's claims with a grain of salt, or is that more the type whose opinions you would accept uncritically and without further analysis?

I take everyone's claims with a grain of salt. Even yours.

In the video I posted, Peterson didn't mention Nietzsche or the Bible. He did mention that Postmodernism makes the mistake of thinking that because there are an infinite number of interpretations of text that there are not only a finite number of interpretations that make sense. Any comments on that?

Or how about the claim that a major Canadian educational society says that its purpose it to produce "social justice warriors?" Easy enough to verify.

This is enormously long. Scroll down to the 4th grade and you will find this:

"Get Involved! Environmental Activist...

Environmentalists are activists who encourage others to change their attitudes and develop habits that benefit the environment. They also pressure governments to create better environmental laws."

And a little further down, there is this:

"Write a persuasive letter to a government official, or to a commercial enterprise, specifically outlining ways to save the environment. Visit the Website www.globalresponse.org to read about their latest campaigns. According to page 29 in the book, “Global Response is an organization that uses letter-writing campaigns to address the environmental concerns of communities around the world.” Write letters to government leaders asking them to ban pesticides and other harmful substances that pollute our waters. Write a report about the impact of one aspect of pollution on the environment (such as spraying crops with chemicals), and send to a local newspaper. Attend a local town council meeting. Ask to address the group with prepared questions and proposals."

A few pages further down:

"Through UNICEF give the gift of water. Have students organize a fundraiser and donate the money to UNICEF"

And a little further down: "Use the extra resources at the back of the book to inspire activism in students."

By Grade 6, they get to read this book. "Rich World, Poor World"

"SYNOPSISThis book discusses the gap that exists between developed countries and developing nations. The end of world poverty exists only in the speeches of politicians. In reality, the world’s economy relies on inequalities, and those in power have no incentive to change it."

In actual fact, the degree of world Poverty has been reduced enormously in the last 30 years.I've already posted evidence from Wikipedia that within the space of 30 years, over 400 MILLION people have been raised out of poverty.